[Closed] Osbourne says no to currency union.

It's really not that curious - and I am not suggesting that anyone has "full" independence obviously - but AS cannot argue that he wants full power over all instruments of economic policy for an iS and then argue that he wants to remain part of a currency union with either rUK or EU. They are contradictory objectives that are incompatible. To be part of any union required a ceding of independence and sovereignty. This is the clearest message of all.

He would be much more honest to say - we want to introduce an S£ within an appropriate timeframe and will accept the pros and the cons that go with that choice. At least some in the SNP and yS are honest enough to say that up front, of course there are risks with such a policy but independence comes with those risks. Simple.

Edit for x-post. Remember JM Keynes Ben - "he who controls the currency, controls the country" - as true now as it was when he said it.

teamhurtmore - Member

It's really not that curious - and I am not suggesting that anyone has "full" independence obviously - but AS cannot argue that he wants full power over all instruments of economic policy for an iS and then argue that he wants to remain part of a currency union with either rUK or EU. They are contradictory objectives that are incompatible.

Nope. Because one of the reasons to control these is to be able to make our own decisions of what to do with them. Being part of the EU and ceding some control is a policy decision in itself. Independence gives us that power, which we currently lack. And, critically, it gives us the power to take that back, if that becomes desirable.

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

FWIW I would imagine an independent Scotland would definitely want to be in the EU. Agreed it would be for an iS to decide whether it wanted to apply to join.

@ben - so your business can make an argument that it wishes to be in the EU, the question is how much is it willing to pay to join, not directly but via a contribution made by an iS and its the taxpayers money (yours) iS are spending and whether you would want the euro. As you know I don't think iS can have one without the other.

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

That's why I said it was a rough analogy.

bencooper - Member

To use a very rough analogy, it's the difference between being an employee and a slave.

Even if that was a good analogy it'd still be pretty tasteless...

I like strained analogies. It's more like driving. At the moment, we're in the back seat of a big family car, we can influence the direction a little but in the end, it's going where dad chooses. Post independence, we're driving a smaller car. We can go where we want, within the restraints of the road. We can listen to our passengers, follow another car, or drive onto a train to the continent and go where it's headed. We can even hand over the keys to someone else and let them drive. But we can always take the keys back. And if we want, we can get high and drive the wrong way down the motorway, but we probably won't.

Some might say, we're not passengers, we're locked in the boot 😉

That's pretty tasteless to anyone who's been kidnapped 😉

Okay, forget the analogies. It's simply a matter of do we want to decide for ourselves whether we're in the EU, or do we want it decided by a parliament over which we have little influence - and which is being driven by UKIP.

What AS is telling you you'll get

[img] [/img]

What you think you're getting

[img] [/img]

What you're actually getting

[img] [/img]

This thread has taken a turn for the better 🙂 (ps that was a poor pun)

@northwind - you elect MPs to Westminster, the Labour party have had a couple of Scottish leaders and a PM. You have your own parliament and many of your own laws. You seem to me to have a great deal of input into where you are headed. If that isn't enough to satisfy you given all the benefits you get from being part of the Union then you should leave.

@ben I'd be quite surprised if the anti EU support in Scotland was much different than it is in the UK.

Properly understood there's no such thing as standalone EU citizenship, just citizenship of a state that is an EU member. If you're a UK citizen today but stop being a UK citizen tomorrow, you don't carry on being an EU citizen (unless you have citizenship of another EU state).

I have seen it argued either way as there is no definitive law/rules regarding this.

I accept your view makes most sense but we are talking about the EU here.

NW the driving analogy has made this thread worthwhile - genuine laughter from me Chapeau

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/policy-primers/uk-eu-citizenship-and-free-movement-persons
"Who determines who is a citizen of the Union?"

Northwind, in your reply earlier to thm, are you suggesting that Scotland has to become independent so that on a currency union we can make a decision to allow the UK to make deciscions for us, except as things stand the UK will not want to make decisions based on our decision?

@Junkyard have you seen it argued Scotlands way by anyone from the EU and I don't mean a Scottish person at the EU, I mean someone independent ideally senior ?

FWIW I think Citizen of the Union is just marketing spin by politicians. The EU doesn't issue passports etc, it's not a country you can be a citizen of.

Excuse me if this sounds discriminatory but I have this image of an irate kilted Scotsman clinging on to his EU citizenship papers screaming "you'll not take what's rightfully mine away from me sonny"

Excuse me if this sounds discriminatory

Is that the posh way of saying "I'm not racist, but..."?

Cheers Stands corrected/informed however you wish to say it

Having just had a rather nice and long lunch, I can enjoy NWs response in good spirit. Scottish/French restaurant - haggis starter with a nip of whisky, (half drunk, half in the haggis - mmmmmm, brings out the flavour perfectly) with a Scottish host. A very educated Scot as demonstrated by his intended voting intentions 😉

But I do love the notion of feeling/being empowered to hand over power and sovereignty to a foreign power. A brilliant twist.

But I do love the notion of feeling/being empowered to hand over power and sovereignty to a foreign power. A brilliant twist.

Jamb, restaurant only a 10min walk from your office. I will send you the details. 😉

10 years since I last had a (decent) plate of haggis - the non deep fried version! And as a starter with a wee dram. Enough to make me change sides - almost!

@ben I'd be quite surprised if the anti EU support in Scotland was much different than it is in the UK

"I'd be quite surprised if the anti EU support in Scotland was much different than it is in the UK"

Ukip have 10% in Scotland,up from 7% because of Cameron visiting this week (seriously,Tory party down 3% in 7 days) Yougov have ukip dropping down from 30% to 24% in the last week in England. So a significant difference.

So if you are opposed to the EU you must be a UKIP supporter ? Where on earth do you get that logic from ?

I am totally opposed to the EU and yet I wouldn't vote UKIP if it was the only political party on the ballot paper.

This recent opinion poll shows that 39% of voters wish to leave the EU, which is not a high number relative to past opinion polls on the matter - many polls have in the past shown much higher opposition to the EU, but UKIP has not in any election so far received anything approaching 39% of the vote.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/uk-britain-politics-europe-idUKBREA2A0TQ20140311

And btw an opinion poll taken in Scotland last year showed that 34% of Scots were opposed to EU membership.

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/6761-scotland-and-the-eu-the-polling-evidence

Are you suggesting that 34% of Scots might have voted UKIP ?

EDITED.

Sorry;edit for the west ham supporting churchill loving pensioner

Ukip,[b]the party who have the strongest anti europe stance[/b]have 10% in Scotland,up from 7% because of Cameron visiting this week (seriously,Tory party down 3% in 7 days) Yougov have ukip dropping down from 30% to 24% in the last week in England. So a significant difference.

The new EU members are given a take it or leave it choice, so euro, working time directive and closer integration etc.

You make it sound like that is comprised solely of bad things. I'll be voting Yes because I fancy a change from the homogenised garbage standard of politician that is on offer at present as part of the UK.

teamhurtmore - Member

But I do love the notion of feeling/being empowered to hand over power and sovereignty to a foreign power. A brilliant twist.

Do you live up a mountain, possibly surrounded by guns? Consenting to give away control is basically what the modern world's made out of. Well, that and having power taken away without consent. You do it as a cirizen and you do it as a nation- whether the UK or iScotland.

The difference here, is making it our choice, because right now it's not. And retaking the right to take that power back, which right now we do not have. And if you can mock the idea of consenting to cede control to others, what should be the response to not even having that choice in the first place? Choosing not to have that option, in fact.

The difference here, is making it our choice,

You're not making any choice about giving power away though - you're voting for independence from the UK, there's no referendum being offered on Scottish EU membership. Whys that then? Why can't the Scottish people be trusted with an EU referendum? At least the evil Tories have guaranteed the poor downtrodden rUK the right to choose their own future, its more than Alex is offering!

[quote=wanmankylung ]I'll be voting Yes because I fancy a change from the homogenised garbage standard of politician that is on offer at present as part of the UK.

I was going to comment on another post, but had to take a timeout to 😆 at this. Do you think completely different types of people will decide to become politicians in iS?

ninfan - Member

You're not making any choice about giving power away though - you're voting for independence from the UK, there's no referendum being offered on Scottish EU membership. Whys that then?

That's a decision for post-independence. You're confusing the Scottish Government position with the way it'll be, a common problem. That first election is going to include a lot of decisions like this.

onsenting to give away control is basically what the modern world's made out of. Well, that and having power taken away without consent. You do it as a cirizen and you do it as a nation- whether the UK or iScotland.

Ponders asking ernie a question about surveys but remembers where that ends up 🙄

duckman - Member

Sorry for using up to date polls

How about using opinion polls that are actually relevant to what's being discussed ?

You know, like polls which show what percentage of Scots wish to leave the EU 💡

I was going to comment on another post, but had to take a timeout to at this. Do you think completely different types of people will decide to become politicians in iS?

I suspect that we'd get a reasonable number of people who are currently Westminster politicians attempting to be elected for the Scottish Parliament (whatever it may be called then) - which would be no bad thing. The woeful MPs who represent places north of the border would probably not get elected. We would get a lot of those MPs giving up on a career in politics and following up their corporate interest so that they can stay living in London. So yes, I do think that we would get different types of people trying to be Scottish MPs than what we do trying and failing to be Westminster MPs. I also think that the first government in an independent Scotland will be a coalition of Labour and the SNP, if not a majority Labour Gov't.

Scotland has bred some great politicians. For instance Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.

[quote=duckman ]Sorry for using up to date polls

Ah, so currency (DYSWIDT?) is the only important criteria for selecting a poll to support your assertion, not whether the poll in question actually provides any data on the point being discussed?

In which case I presume you'll be pleased to see that the very latest [url= http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2014/05/20/comres-battlebus-poll-for-the-independent-points-to-cameron-holding-on-as-pm-next-year/ ]ComRes poll[/url] shows support for Scottish independence is rising.

How about using opinion polls that are actually relevant to what's being discussed ?

[quote=wanmankylung ]I suspect that we'd get a reasonable number of people who are currently Westminster politicians attempting to be elected for the Scottish Parliament (whatever it may be called then) - which would be no bad thing. The woeful MPs who represent places north of the border would probably not get elected.

Well they got elected by the very same electorate, so why on earth wouldn't they get elected just because the workplace would be somewhere different? If they're so woeful, why haven't they already been voted out?

We would get a lot of those MPs giving up on a career in politics and following up their corporate interest so that they can stay living in London.

Ah, so the advantage is actually getting different MPs, not a different type of MPs. I suppose this does come back to the crux of what seems to be the main argument for independence - it doesn't matter if they're corrupt incompetent MPs, so long as they're our corrupt incompetent MPs.

Maybe I should phrase the question differently - for what reason would you get a different type of person becoming an MP just because the parliament is in Edinburgh rather than London?

Have you ever watched first ministers questions? There are not many politicians that stand out. We struggle to get enough decent politicians to make a cabinet from million people, good luck doing the same from only five million.

Well they got elected by the very same electorate, so why on earth wouldn't they get elected just because the workplace would be somewhere different? If they're so woeful, why haven't they already been voted out?

I suppose this does come back to the crux of what seems to be the main argument for independence - it doesn't matter if they're corrupt incompetent MPs, so long as they're our corrupt incompetent MPs.

Maybe I should phrase the question differently - for what reason would you get a different type of person becoming an MP just because the parliament is in Edinburgh rather than London?

Erm - because there are a lot of people living in Scotland for whom living and working in London is not a price worth paying in order to become a politician.

Erm - because there are a lot of people living in Scotland for whom living and working in London is not a price worth paying in order to become a politician.

So you want people with less commitment - that's brilliant !!! 🙂

It would seem that politicians don't spend all of their time in Westminster.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/21/mps-lazy-hours-margaret-hodge ]MPs spend less time in Westminster[/url]

So you want people with less commitment - that's brilliant !!!

No - I want people who have a life balance and set of values that means they live where they want to live rather than move to somewhere they dont like just to further their career. I want people who I can relate to.

[quote=wanmankylung ]They were not in direct competition with the people who have MSP seats at the time of that vote - who is to say either way who would win a vote between the MSP and a MP for the same area.

So some of the woeful incompetent Westminster MPs might get in. Presumably all current MSPs are a beacon of light in comparison?

Erm - because there are a lot of people living in Scotland for whom living and working in London is not a price worth paying in order to become a politician.

So how many of those do you seriously think have the ambition to be an MP in Edinburgh? ISTM there are far worse things (and plenty of compensations) about being an MP!

No - I want people who have a life balance and set of values that means they live where they want to live rather than move to somewhere they dont like just to further their career.

Now I'm really confused - you're telling me that the MP for Shetland won't have to live in Edinburgh?

I want people who I can relate to.

Ah, so I was right about simply wanting "our" incompetent and corrupt MPs.

[i]I want people who have a life balance and set of values that means they live where they want to live rather than move to somewhere they dont like just to further their career.[/i]

Why should they not like London? Do all Scottish politicians not like London? Do all Scottish people not like London? I think your rampant nationalism is clouding your judgement

So some of the woeful incompetent Westminster MPs might get in. Presumably all current MSPs are a beacon of light in comparison?

For your first question - you never know. They might not be able to stick around for long though. Would Danny Alexander be voted in? Probably not....

So how many of those do you seriously think have the ambition to be an MP in Edinburgh? ISTM there are far worse things (and plenty of compensations) about being an MP!

Now I'm really confused - you're telling me that the MP for Shetland won't have to live in Edinburgh?

If they don't want to be an MP in Edinburgh nobody is forcing their hand and personally I wouldn't want any MP to be representing me if their primary goal wasn't to do their best for the people who voted them in. (But that's a completely different matter which is more about career politicians who are just in the business of feathering their nest for later life).

I've just realised I'm perfectly qualified to be a Scottish MP - I don't like London. Will you vote for me, wanmankylung?

....set of values that means they live where they want to live rather than move to somewhere they dont like just to further their career.

So only Edinburgh MSPs will live in Edinburgh then, all other MSPs will live elsewhere. Otherwise you won't like their "set of values". Apparently.

[quote=wanmankylung ]If they don't want to be an MP in Edinburgh nobody is forcing their hand

In just the same way that nobody is forcing anybody to be a Westminster MP - but I'm still not sure why London/Edinburgh makes any difference to the quality of politicians.

(But that's a completely different matter which is more about career politicians who are just in the business of feathering their nest for later life).

Presumably there are no people like that in Scotland?

No. Because I don't think your debating skills or style are anything like the required standard.

I promise I'll try and appear more stupid and corrupt if you vote for me, and do my very best not to show your claims are indefensible.

No. Because I don't think your debating skills or style are anything like the required standard.

So it's nothing to do with policies or politics then, just debating skills and styles.

Good news for Gorgeous George Galloway then.

Much like Better Together there is no substance to what he/she has to say and the main approach is to try and repeat something enough times so that people start to believe it. Very much like your own approach ernie_lynch. It's not big, it's not clever and it's frankly boring.

I've just realised I'm perfectly qualified to be a Scottish MP - I don't like London

aracer - Member
duckman » Sorry for using up to date polls
Ah, so currency (DYSWIDT?) is the only important criteria for selecting a poll to support your assertion, not whether the poll in question actually provides any data on the point being discussed?

Well,the original point was that Scotland and England share a similar view on European membership. I would suggest the way people vote would be a fairly strong indicator of their views on certain topics.Remind me what the central focus of ukip is? Maybe there's is another reason why so many of you vote for them,but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are euro skeptics, rather than anything less savoury.

So if you are opposed to the EU you must be a UKIP supporter ? Where on earth do you get that logic from ?

I cannot think of anything less empowering than being ruled by people you did not vote for

I think the key argument on Scotland vs Westminster MP's is that Scotland would be ruled by their own corrupt incompetents rather than ours.

There have been some excellent politicians from Scotland, I've no doubt that with an iS they will attract more top quality people into politics. Sadly, there will also be a big increase in hangers-on as there will be a huge increase in beaurocrats, as I posted before there will be a long list of applicants (and a long list of jobs) in the new Scottish Foreign Office

Well,the original point was that Scotland and England share a similar view on European membership

there will be a huge increase in beaurocrats

I know this is often posted as a problem with independence, but is there evidence for it? Do other smaller countries have large numbers of bureaucrats?

@ben - currently you have no foreign/diplomatic service for example, no equivalent of HMRC, DVLA. There must be some economies of scale for Scotland's interests and Civil Service leveraging off that of the wider UK. You need to create all of that. It's good as it's Scottish jobs for Scottish people and a focus purely on your interests but it has to be more expensive that at present I think.

Jambalaya - to be fair to them on that, there's also a lot of civil service jobs covering UK roles up in Scotland - there were big CSA offices up there for example, the cynic would comment that certain politicians stacked lots of jobs up there in 'pet' constituencies so that the voters were suckling off the government teat and would keep voting Labour...

I suppose its possible that you could rerole them, so you might not need [i]more[/i] staff but I don't know how much you'd have to pay out in costs of retraining and reroling for example a CSA/CMEC office into a Scottish DVLA or passport one? or even if the current staff would even have the skills/suitability (and if you did close them, who would be responsible for that decision, would the office just close or would it pass into the hands of Holyrood? think of the redundancy payments the Scottish government might have to shoulder from that)

I don't like London. Will you vote for me

@JunkYard Well provided in the last 10 years you voted for one of Labour. Lib Dem or Conservative you have been ruled by who you voted for.

Assuming it's a minority party like SNP, Greens etc then you cannot seriously expect for a national government of the colour ?

Also to say you have no representation means you view the Scottish Parliament as worthless ?

Looks like this link might be useful

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/contact-us

You need to create all of that.

We do, yes. And I'm not minimising the challenges of having to build institutions. However there's a lot we won't need - we won't need a massive MOD, for a start, nor will we need the House of Lords and all it's ancillaries. We already have quite a bit - separate health, education and legal systems, and devolution has helped too.

So while in the short term I'm sure there will be costs and disruption, in the long run I think we will actually end up saving money. Best I can find with quick googling is this graph:

[img] [/img]

So Scandinavian countries have a higher level of government jobs - that's no big surprise. The Czech and Slovak republics and New Zealand, similar in size to Scotland, have smaller numbers.

So I'd say the number of bureaucrats depends more on what kind of country it is, not the size of the country. Scandinavian countries have more because of their welfare systems.

we won't need a massive MOD, for a start,

Eh, The white paper specifically criticised Westminster for reducing the size of the MOD in Scotland:

In Scotland, the adverse consequences of Westminster's defence policies have been felt in many ways:

...Ministry of Defence employment - civilian and service - in Scotland has fallen from 24,680 in 2000 to 15,340 in 2013, a proportionately larger fall than across the UK as a whole. Consequently, Scotland's share of UK-based Ministry of Defence personnel has fallen from 9.2 per cent to 7.5 per cent over this period

Now you're saying this is a good thing 😆

I think it's a good thing, yes.

The complaint above is specifically about how MoD cuts have been deeper in Scotland than elsewhere, which is a different complaint.

I was referring to how the country voted not how individuals voted and you know this

Its is a simple and undeniable fact/reality that the nation of Scotland did not vote for and would not have the current govt were it iS. At least THM has the sense to not even try and explain why this is more freedom than independence as he realises it is impossible to argue this.

You don't always get the government you voted for. That's true for all of us and in any democracy, that's the point I was trying to make. So you didn't get the Government you voted for this time but you did have one Scotland voted for last time with a representative at the highest level. FWIW I don't think the budget cuts etc would have been much different under Labour. Labour was never going to get in after the debacle of the banking crises, Iraq war and Brown's personal lack of credibility with the voters.

THM is much more sensible than me, its not fair but that's the way it is. 😕

@ben, on MOD cuts I don't have the figures but is it possible that the UK had borne more than its "fair share" of cuts in the past (Scotland protected by Brown) and that's being addressed in the latest round ? I don't know. I do know the cuts to the MoD in the past 10+ years have been pretty savage all round.

In that case I would have been nicer

I agree we dont all get the govt we voted [ unless its North Korea 😉 ] for but when it is a country it will smart a bit more- we did this when folk compared constituencies etc and I assume we all agree countries are different from individuals and constituencies

I dont live in Scotland to be clear. I dont even sound Scottish anymore but dont you ever ever call me English to my face as thems fighting words 😉

jambalaya - Member

You don't always get the government you voted for. That's true for all of us and in any democracy, that's the point I was trying to make. So you didn't get the Government you voted for this time but you did have one Scotland voted for last time with a representative at the highest level

Scotland has had the government it voted for less than half the time since the war. I don't know the numbers for the Welsh but I doubt it's so different. (NI is a bit of a special case with their unique parties). How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

I don't have the figures but is it possible that the UK had borne more than its "fair share" of cuts in the past (Scotland protected by Brown) and that's being addressed in the latest round ?

No, the figures don't show that:

Between 2000 and 2010 Ministry of Defence personnel in Scotland were cut by 27.9%. This is much higher than the equivalent UK cut of 11.6%.

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/12-defence-facts-that-the-no-campaign-dont-want-you-to-know/

Some parts of the country have governments they dont vote for 100% of the time - that is inescapable as Jamabalaya points out.

Hence defining independence in terms of well we wont get a certain type of outcome (eg the bedroom tax) is pretty silly when you think about it. The whole argument will follow a path of reductio ad absurdam as one elite is replaced by another. Tis always the way.

But with "freedom" you will have a foreign government setting the levers of power over the economy without any or with minimal reference to what is happening domestically. So odd-on bet that you actually have less freedom than before with zero representation. And that's progress?

And that's progress?

Yes. Because if we don't like how those levers are being pulled, our government - the one we voted for - can do something about it.

At the moment the levers are set to benefit the City, not Scotland (or the North, or Wales, etc), and we can't do anything about it. With independence, we can.

No they cant, thats the whole point. AS proposals require sovereignty to be ceded. This whole thread is about the impact of choosing a currency union as the "supposed" best option for Scotland (and the rUK, hic!).

Now if AS stood up and said, we want to have an independent Scottish pound that may be fixed, floating or some hybrid, then the arguments that you make may start to have some/more validity. At the moment, they don't which is why I come back to Keynes' comment about "who controls the currency."

No they cant, thats the whole point.

Sure they can. they can say "this currency union thing isn't working for Scotland, we're going to work towards joining the Euro" or whatever.

Remember the impact of a change in the price of NS Oil will have differing impacts on the economies of iS and rUK. But interest rates and fiscal policy will be set in the context solely of the impact on one party - rUK. So policy conflicts are likely to more significant not less significant in the event of a yes vote. But now you cant even exercise "any" democratic influence over the decision makers - now that may well lead to justifiable accusations of bullying. Be careful what you ask for!

That would be even worse. The Scottish economy is far more aligned with the economy of the rUK than with the economies of the € area.

The choice of a CU with rUK is a clear a message as possible that the interest of Scotland are best served by a union with rUK. And guess who is proposing that!?! 😉

and the cost of all these changes of mind........?

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect, who act to benefit the City. We lose out in EU funding, in farming and fishery policies, in investment and other areas. And we have no control over it.

With independence, sure - we're still at the mercy of larger forces. But at least we can do something - we'd have representation in Europe, we'd have the ability to decide which currency unions we want to join (as compared to the one we're in now, which we didn't choose), we'd be able to make our own decisions.

Well happy for you to believe that Ben if you want. But I fear you will be ultimately be disappointed. But at least in that case, there would be no one else to blame! 😉

Bon apetit!

But at least in that case, there would be no one else to blame!

Honestly, I think this is a very good reason for independence. We need to be able to make our own mistakes, instead of just taking the easy route and blaming someone else.

Though I'm sure you'll still blame the English 😉

How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

Some parts of the country

We all agree if you compare chalk and cheese they look different
Please reference countries and not constituencies.

Hence defining independence in terms of well we wont get a certain type of outcome (eg the bedroom tax) is pretty silly when you think about it. The whole argument will follow a path of reductio ad absurdam as one elite is replaced by another. Tis always the way.

But with "freedom" you will have a foreign government setting the levers of power over the economy

So odd-on bet that you actually have less freedom than before with zero representation.

At the moment we have basically zero control - governments we don't elect,

you are correct that any currency union [ or indeed union] involves the ceding of some powers but these powers are clearly less than NOT BEING ABLE TO CHOSE YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT!!
Its impossible to argue otherwise hence why you barely even try and just repeat your claim

THM you teach and you mark . You know you would mark this essay poorly as a one sided polemic that barely addresses the central issue or question asked
[b]Nothing can be a greater restriction of a countries freedom than not having the govt you voted for and having one imposed by another countries choices.[/b] this is the current scenario.
yes iS has other compromises that mean it is not completely free [ no country is IMHO] and it may even be less free in some areas than the UK currently or rUK afterwards. These are reasonable points but the point [emboldened] still stands and you cannot counter it.

You cannot even engage on it as you know you will be batting on a loosing wicket.

I think Scottish/English* relations would actually improve a lot after independence - sure there would be some in England who were resentful of Scotland breaking away, and some in Scotland who will still harbour grudges, but with both countries on a more equal footing with each other then there's going to be a lot less resentment both ways.

*I use this as shorthand for "people living in Scotland/England" - place of birth or family background has nothing to do with it.

Scotland has had the government it voted for less than half the time since the war.

Since 1945 there have been 18 elections, the Scottish electorate got the result they wanted in 9 of them. Or looking at it slightly differently, from 1945 to present date is 69 years, the government Scotland voted for has been in power for 37 of them. So Scotland has had the government they voted for more than half of the time. Not a bad result for <10% of the electorate?

(based on % votes cast, since the Scottish are all about PR)

How many times has England not had the government it voted for?

4 – again based on % votes cast, (not including the current government though).

Beaten to it! England (sic, imagine if we had said that!) or the UK has had plenty of experience of gov without an outright majority (especially in terms of votes cast) It's a non point, albeit like the currency = assets one, a seductive one that the SNP uses well.

http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk/2014/04/getting-government-that-we-vote-for.html